Talk:Iron Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iron Man article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
WikiProject Comics This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale. See comments
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Vietnam reference

Isn't the reference to Vietnam a retcon, put in place IIRC by John Byrne in the late 1980s? Luis Dantas

It was pretty obvious it was Vietnam in the original story, but to be honest I can't recall without access to my issues at the moment if it was named or just an unnamed South East Asian country. David Michelinie was the one who made it explicit in the 70s, I believe. If someone can confirm it and fix it, that'd be great. --khaosworks 19:15, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
From what little I can gather, it was unnamed. I've fixed it in the main text. --khaosworks 19:25, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ick. A troll of USENET now shows that yes, it was named Vietnam. Reverted. --khaosworks 19:34, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I hear now (from chatting with folks at the local comics shoppe) that it's been (re)changed, and that now Stark was wounded in Afghanistan in the last 1990s, not 'Nam in the last 60s. Can anyone confirm? --Dr Archeville 05:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armors

I think, of all the Marvel characters, Iron Man has the most number of costumes (or in this case, armors). The funny thing is, Iron Man's Wiki page has not a list of them at least. Wolverine has a list of all the costumes he's had. Why can't Iron Man have his? --Windspinner 09:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)windspinner

There's a couple of external links to sites which list the various armors. I mean, Tony changes armors like he changes underwear, and I'm uncertain of the encyclopedic value of listing every armor he's ever had. If you feel energetic enough, you might want to create a daughter article just for the armors (as to put it in the main article would probably make it way too long). Personally, I feel that a listing of that nature is way too trivial (and I don't like it in Wolverine either), but hey, knock yourself out. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right, it might seem too trivial. Well, I was just thinking that those armors were part of Iron Man's history, and putting them on this page would make it a more interesting article, but I guess I might have thought wrong as some just-curious-who-Iron-Man-is readers might find it uninteresting and tiresome. Hey, how about we just place here Tony's women? Nah, just kidding. --Windspinner 23:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)windspinner
I don't think so. IM(NS)HO, it may reflect changes in attitude (in Logan, anyhow), & in IM, there's room for comment on "fadishness" (or "fannishness") of the suits: recall, there were shrieks of protest when artists first del the mask's nose... In the main article, N, but... Trekphiler 17:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a comprimise could be made as to list important changes in his armor. The first being grey, his upgrade being gold (thus the nickname the Golden Avenger), the nose and flack involved, the Stealth armor, Hulkbuster, the new nano-armor. This display important turning points and highlight function rather than simply form (well, all but the nose). --RedKnight 17:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd not mind working on an "Armors of Iron Man" page. I mean, Captain America's shield and Mjolnir, the Hammer of Thor have their own pages, so why not one for Tony's suits? Dr Archeville 14:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actors

I don't think anyone official has made reference to Matt Dillon being attached to the Iron Man movie. No actors have been discussed publically, whoever put Matt Dillon is probably just a fan, but I won't go delete it myself if there's something I don't konw.

Latest news releases place Robert Downey, jr in the role of Tony Stark.--RedKnight 17:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's already in the article. CovenantD 01:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

Maybe it's me, but, every app he's made outside IM? And who decided which stories were "important"? What happened to the assassination of the ambassador? The first alky story? Revealling his ID to Michael O'Brien? Beth telling him she knew? Or Kraken?! This reads like a MU entry, very biased toward the contemporary IM: N mention Whitney Frost (!) or Mandarin (!), nor Yellow Claw, Midas, the Melter... Hey, I was a sometime fan, so I'm N in a pos to write it, but it sure needs some rewrite. IMHO, the article should be an examination of IM's history & his significance as a character within the MU, N a glorified MU entry for potential readers if IM... Trekphiler 17:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

To try and address some of the concerns: The assassination of the Carnellian ambassador is actually in the entry, just before we talk about Stane. The Mandarin is also there; Yellow Claw, Midas, the Melter are all minor, and Yellow Claw wasn't really even an Iron Man villain anyway, just a drag-in from the Timely days to address the similarities between him and the Mandarin. I've read Iron Man over the last nearly thirty years or so and while it's obviously just my take on it, the stories mentioned are the major ones that people actually remember and go on about, not small things like Bethany telling Stark she knew the worst-kept secret identity in comics-dom. You'll notice there isn't a mention of Janice Cord either (though there arguable should be).
Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying you don't have a point about the content being more about the "modern Iron Man", but recent development generally hold stronger weight in the mind's eye. I do agree that there should be a bit more about Stark's place in the MU as the technologist and businessman (and to a degree that's also mentioned), and probably a bit about the aforementioned worst-kept secret identity, and unless someone else does, I'll think on that over the next few days, but not everything needs to be in, IMO. Thanks for the suggestions, in any case. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I pruned the following links per my understanding of WP:EL and to avoid the Spam Event Horizon.

There seem to be several authoritative links without needing to go into aol member pages and geocities pages, and the themes appear to me to be problematic re copyright. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iron Man movie rights have been reverted back to Marvel.

So the "current" information detailing an Iron Man movie is unfortunately out of date. There is no definite plans or release schedule for an Iron Man movie.

  • There are currently plans for an Iron Man movie to be released in 2008. I have added a link to the See Also section. Aericanwizard 20:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mega Morphs

I'm pretty sure that the Mega Morphs comic series isn't canon. 24.62.27.66 01:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It was mentioned, and flatly denied by Stark, in the Civil War edition of the Daily Bugle (published by Marvel but with articles set within the Marvel Universe). That implies to me that MegaMorphs IS canon, but officially covered up by Stark and his government allies (not to mention the fact that Wolverine would never admit to having been part of it). - Kevingarcia 08:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Publication History

"After the final issue, #99 (March 1968), after which the book became Captain America, Iron Man appeared in the one-shot Iron Man and Sub-Mariner #1 (April 1968), before debuting in his own title with The Invincible Iron Man #1 (May 1968)."

I have researched this statement and it is accurate except for the title of Iron Man's first comic of 1968. Although the cover of the comic lists 'The Invicible Iron Man' the actual publication title is simply 'Iron Man' as displayed in the indicia within the comic. There has actually been no Iron Man series titled The Invicible Iron Man.

I had attempted to correct this on the main page (by simply placing 'The Invisible' within brackets so as to not change the actual text) but this has been changed back since then.

In the interest of accuracy this should be corrected. --RedKnight 23:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for just plain Iron Man if the consensus is not to use longer cover title, The Invincible Iron Man. The Unofficial Handbook of Marvel Comics Creators uses the cover title, while the equally authoritative Grand Comics Database uses the indicia title. Six'a one, half dozen'a of the other. Just please not parentheses or brackets that aren't in either!  :-) --Tenebrae 04:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Best place to start?

Whats the best issue to start reading Iron Man?I dont mean just one important issue, I mean one important and good. Thanks for help!

[edit] Origin Story?

I'm trying to figure this out.

According to this entry (and other sources I've read) Tony Stark created the original armor in Vietnam (In Tales of Suspense 39). For some reason I was always under the impression that this story took place during the Korean War.

This makes more sense to me, as the US didn't enter Vietnam till 1965, and Tales of Suspense 39 was published in 1963.

Does anyone know for sure if this was mentioned in the comic at all? Or have they just ret-conned the whole thing to Vietnam anyway to make Tony Stark seem younger? --Spectre General 02:40, 10 May 2006

The US did not commit combat troops in Vietnam until 1965, but the US had began sending military advisors to train the South Vietnamese as far back as 1955, and in fact, that's when the Vietnam Veterans Memorial starts recording the start of US military involvement. The original TOS story explicitly - and specifically - states that the country is Vietnam. The war in Korea ended in 1953. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Well there you go. Thanks alot! --Spectre General 02:40, 10 May 2006

I hear now (from chatting with folks at the local comics shoppe) that it's been (re)changed, and that now Stark was wounded in Afghanistan in the last 1990s, not 'Nam in the last 60s. Can anyone confirm? --Dr Archeville 05:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate Iron Man

The reason for my deletion was that the edits constitute conclusions ("This is his motivation for his many acts of "philanthropy"; "this version of Stark is also written with...") and speculation ("as well as possibly his motivation for becoming a superhero)", both of which are disallowed as [[Wikipedia:No_original_research|original research].

What would work is to quote one of the writers or a character in comics him/herself, e.g., "Joe Smith, who wrote Iron Man in the early 1990s said in (cite interview source here) that such-and-such provided the motivation for Stark's philanthropy and heroics," or "Joe Smith, author of Ultimate Avengers said in (cite interview source here) that he envisioned this alternate-universe version as more of a such-and-such than his mainstream-continuity counterpart". -- Tenebrae 13:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My point, however, is that this isn't OR. I know the difference - this is stuff directly from the source material. Stark said that the tumor was the reason he became a superhero; this isn't my deduction. Stark acts like more of a thrillseeking playboy than his Earth-616 counterpart, again which is evident in the comic, not my conclusions. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The citation from the comic, where Stark himself states it, is exactly spot-on. That's exactly the way, and thank you for taking the time to look it up and put it in.
The other thing, about the thrill-seeking playboy, really does remain conclusion, though. For example, I would argue that they're both thrill-seeking playboys. Stark's been a race-car driving, etc., he's considered a playboy in the main-continuity media, etc. It's interpretation in either case, and that's why Wiki disallows conclusion and says to stick to the concrete stuff. -- Tenebrae 15:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm a fan of Ultimate Iron Man, and have read most of the issues he appears in. I added information to the section (why didn't anybody mention unbearable pain, or his healing factor?) The fact his name is Antonio rather than Anthony is rather important. Or at least noteworthy. Going from Caucasian to Hispanic is a big change. All that information is omni-present in the Ultimate Iron Man mini-series. I also noticed that Ultimate Marvel Team Up #4 says Tony rescued the Vice-President, while the tpb of Ultimate Iron Man says he rescued the President.CovertSomnophore 20:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nitro Connection

Nitro's bio on Marvel.com has recently, rather conspicuously, been updated to reveal that Tony Stark has access to a frequency that can force Nitro to detonate. Seems somewhat notable. 24.62.27.66 04:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Only if it's later revealed Tony blew up Nitro at Stamford. But Iron Man wouldn't do a thing like that...CovertSomnophore 20:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changing Fortunes revisions

This section seems to go off-topic and gives only brief summaries or descriptions of what I feel could be separate articles or much larger sections, namely Armor Wars, Armor Wars II, and the death of Tony Stark. I suggest a rewrite of this section and give these three story arcs at least new sections, but new articles would probably be the way to go. I can help contribute to the Armor Wars II and death of Tony story arcs.--Undertow87 17:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The picture

I do not think that the image on the article is a good example of Iron Man. Thats really all I have. I hope I added this comment correctly.

[edit] Civil War section

This seems to be a lengthy Civil War primer. I'd like to propose we concentrate on Iron Man's part of the events, in short summary, and insert the template

Main article: Civil War (comics)

Thoughts? -- Tenebrae 18:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The section is not only long, but horribly written. It reads like a rambling train of thought, and the tense keeps shifting. I'd try to edit it, but I'm new here, and i got a headache just from reading it. My head will likely explode trying to parse the whole thing.

[edit] "Significant stories"

Elsewhere in the Comics Project, this kind of section has been removed as inherently POV. I can say that in my own opinion, as opposed to the opinion of the original editor(s), many of the stories listed here are not significant. They also use blantatnly POV terms ("first and greatest battle"). I'm calling for discussion on this. A smaller list of historically notable issues would be appropriate. --Tenebrae 16:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

How funny. I was just going to start a discussion about it also. I'm for the elimination of it entirely, but would like to know what criteria you would use for "historically notable" and how that would avoid random editors adding their personal favorites. CovenantD 19:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Good questions. It gets me to thinking we might move this discussion over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines and make it more global.
My first pass, and feel free to copy-paste this if consensus is to move it there. First appearances, certainly. Issues that introduced major characters. Issues with major costume changes. Issues with major change of locale (e.g., Daredevil temporarily moving to San Francisco, in '70s comics). Issues with confirmably acclaimed/award-winning or otherwise notable creators beginning a run. Death/marriage (not that those two are equated!) of a major character. Some major, enduring change, which would take the perspective of time. Thoughts? --Tenebrae 03:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Issues where Stark first falls to alcoholism? --Dr Archeville 14:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference the issues in the pub. and character histories, remove the list. --Jamdav86 19:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Iron Maniac into Iron Man?

Maybe I'm missing something, but he doesn't seem notable enough to deserve his own article. The WikiProject Comics editorial guidelines on alternate versions state that 'alternate versions of characters should have entries in the main article unless that article grows unmanageably large' and seem to suggest splitting into additional articles as a last resort. --Mrph 00:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

  • Merge - --Mrph 00:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and trim. The character is not noteworthy enough for his own article. However, the Iron Man does not need to waste that much space merely merging this material into it. Iron Maniac should be left with very little detail after the merge. Doczilla 01:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and trim - per the guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines I think you can just be bold and do it. It's a one-shot alternate version, definitely not in need of its own article. --NewtΨΦ 01:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - --NetK 04:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and trim - I barely think Iron Maniac deserves a mention, and certainly not his own article. --JackofSpades 07:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and trim - Tenebrae 15:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Surpringly, I prefer to keep, at least pending the outcome of the Civil War event. This character actually has appeared a fair number of times, in more than one storyline, so this guy isn't simply a one-shot. That said, the article itself is of poor quality so it might be worth deleting. And I'm not sure the name is official anyway, which concerns me a fair bit. Mister.Manticore 03:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and trim. Iron Maniac hasn't ever appeared outside of Marvel Team Up or from any writer other than Robert Kirkman, has he? Ford MF 16:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and trim- Even though he does "exist" within the regular MU; he's still an alternate version of Iron Man AND should be treated as such. PaxHouse 00:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Decision

Closed with a decision to merge (and to edit this down severely, as per comments above) --Mrph 17:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing, please add

  • Publication history from May 1968-present
  • Character history - very good, but probably needs at least one issue number every paragraph, serving as a cite

--Jamdav86 19:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ultimate ironman wealth

I am surpised that no one on the the internet has even talk about how rich he is. i think 350 billion is worth talking about on his bio.

[edit] Still a superhero?

Given that Iron Man is the primary supervillian in the Civil War arc, would it still be correct to refer to him as a superhero. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.254.47.19 (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

He's, at worst, the antagonist, and not a supervillain; there's a difference. The U.S. government and the majority of Marvel Universe Americans aren't villains. Naming him a supervillain and not Captain America would be POV. --PsyphicsΨΦ 19:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Captain America hasn't killed a superhero, Captain America hasn't fought against Freedom, Captain America hasn't sentenced poeple to the Negative Zone, Captain America hasn't armed supervillians and given them a headhunter mandate. Not once has Captain America acted un-American. Iron Man, on the other hand, HAS done these things AND he has stopped fighting super-villians so he can force good people to sign a slip of paper. These are villianous actions on Iron Man's part that have not been repeated on the other side. He's at best a super-beaurocrat at worst a super-villian but his actions haven't approached heroism in a while. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.254.47.19 (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC).
You're right... captain america hasn't acted un-american... but he is still going against the current administrations decision. Art imitating real life? He is still a superhero... but just not a superhero for the side you support.TehPhil 17:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
And y'know ... if superheroes really existed, would you really want vigilantes — which is what they are, in legal terms — going around taking the law into their own hands? Police, in real life, sometimes shoot and kill innocent people by mistake. Amadou Diallo comes to mind. And juries have sentenced innocent men to death, as advanced DNA testing has proven. To one person, Iron Man is in the wrong. To another, Captain America, who wants no accountability for vigilantes' actions, is in the wrong.
Drivers and duck hunters and nurses ... they all have to have a license. They all need training. It's not unreasonable to expect superpowered individuals to be held accountable just like anyone else. Check out Garth Ennis, both in his Marvel Max Punisher work and in his DC series The Boys if you want an expansion on this idea, from one of comics' greats. --Tenebrae 01:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Super vigilantism has worked well enough for the last 67 years in the Timely/Marvel Universe (68 in the DC universe) and accountability has not been a problem for rogue heroes either. The SRA is just a more general writing of the villian Senator Kelly's Mutant Registration Act. How did enforcing such a law become a heroic thing? How did arming psychopathic villians in the Thunderbolts become a heroic thing? How did imprisoning superheroes in the Negative Zone become a heroic thing? How did cloning Thor against his will and using him as a mind controlled weapon become a heroic thing? The question is whether Iron Man is even remotely heroic anymore? Not whether Captain America is in the right or in the wrong or a superhero, that's for his discussion page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.254.47.19 (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. CovenantD 08:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

We can't disregard 40+ years of superheroism because of one story arc. --PsyphicsΨΦ 13:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I wish Captain America had killed him. Or at least knocked him out. Just had to say that somewhere. RobertAustin 02:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] End of civil war

Reverted the vandalism, as per the notice on the civil war talk page Cactusrob 20:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to article picture - STOP.

To all whom it may concern - STOP changing the picture and DISCUSS which picture there is a concensus for use in the article. --Charlesknight 00:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the picture I feel should be used. It gives a classic perspective of Iron Man. [1] DCincarnate

and honestly I just think that is a but ugly picture. Its the mask. Also you said that the problem was that is was to 3-d, well i found a pic that i like and that is not 3-D, so i think we should stick with that. And really I was changing the pic back to the oringal one that was there before all this happened, and i found the new one to put a stop to this.Phoenix741 00:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, let's hear first what others feel which image should be set up DCincarnate

yea this is really going to sound immature and i apologize, but this is the best way i can put this into words.
You say that now, but you were the one who started all of this by changing it with out talking about it. I say we just stop this and leave it the way it is, i will if you will.Phoenix741 01:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You say that now, but you were the one who started all of this by changing it with out talking about it.

And YOU were the one who started this by changing the image back and forth, despite I already had changed the picture. You could just well yourself have started this discussion. You also seem to be the only who wanted to switch the image.

I say we just stop this and leave it the way it is, i will if you will

You mean leaving with the picture you just added. Why? I'm not trying to make some "contest" out of this, but seriously. If we want the "right" image, then we should listen to what other Wiki contributors have to say. DCincarnate

Ok i am just going to say this then stop cause truthfully, we are both acting childish and I want it to stop.I changed it back to the ORIGINAL(well the first image i saw with the article). Also when i did change it back you could of put something in the discussion too, and i will openly admit that we both messed up on that. Plus, now that the Image that you added is being threatened of deletion(i say that cause of the whole orphaned image policy), NOW you want to put it to a vote, even though you just randomly changed it at the start of all this and where you could of easily of said something on here like "Hey i think this image is better, what do you all think" and avoided all of this. Now I really wants this to end(thus i found an image that as you put is not to 3dish or whatever you said before this thread was started) so fine I will vote and what even happens happens.
I vote for either the original image(the cool 3d one) or the one that I added.Your image violates the rules set up about SHBs, if you look at WP:CMC/EG and you see the rules about the picture you can see rule 4 which says "If the character has a clearly-defined primary costume (e.g. Superman), a picture of this should be used. Otherwise, the most recent ongoing costume of the character should be used." which blows your whole argument out of the water with the classic perspective argument.Phoenix741 02:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What I meant, is that the picture gives a classic perpective of Iron Man himself with the whole body shot and pose, not that his armor resembles his original one that he used before.

Plus, now that the Image that you added is being threatened of deletion(i say that cause of the whole orphaned image policy)

And where does this say? Because I haven't heard a squat about it.

What I meant, is that the picture gives a classic perpective of Iron Man himself with the whole body shot and pose, not that his armor resembles his original one that he used before.
Honestly that makes no sense, you should of just said that, it shows iron man with the whole body shot and pose. They way you said it seemed to be classic armor.
And where does this say? Because I haven't heard a squat about it.
It is general policy(and commen sense), if a pic does not link to anywhere, then it will be deleted Phoenix741 17:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say we use Image:ToS39.jpg. It's iconic and it reinforces that he's a comic book character (which promotional art and photoshopped images do not). Another choice would be Image:Ironman1.jpg, as it's the first issue of Iron Man and has the red and yellow color scheme that we've all come to know. The other suits can be (and are) shown later in the article, no? I recognize that these are already used in the article, but I think the article would be fine with one of them moved to the SHB. --PsyphicsΨΦ 18:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I like the idea os using Image:Ironman1.jpg. The only reason i changed it is because i just really don't wana use the image that DC put up. To me it looks nothing like an armor, and the mask looks more like an alien than a metal helment. So yea i think your idea works.Phoenix741 21:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What about this one? Image:Invincibleiron.png‎. It's pretty good.

It is better than that other one, but Psyphics does have a point of using a comic cover.Phoenix741 14:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded a smaller version of the "3D" picture. It's been here for a long time and I see no reason for a replacement. Wiki-newbie 17:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations and issue refs

It looks like this is graded back to 'A' again, but there are still a couple of citation/issue # requests tagged in the main article - is anyone able to provide sources for these? If not, after a fair length of time, should the relevant statements be deleted? --Mrph 17:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DVD

Got a DVD comming out real shortly, on Jan 23 or 24, 2007. Just seen the ad. Martial Law 00:07, 20 January 2007 (UT


[edit] Character Analysis

I'd really like to see a character analysis section on the page. Something similar to what appears on the moon knight page and which used to appear on the superman and batman pages.

Something delving a bit into Stark's psyche and discusses his frailty's. I'd imagine mentioning his depression and alcoholism. Tony's one of the more complex characters in the MU and although he does appear to be the more villainous of the two civil war leaders, he did assemble the illuminati and start the whole civil war with the best intentions. I thought maybe a section dealing with his character might help people reading the article get more of a feel for Tony and maybe make him seem more 'fleshed out'. Although i'm sure this is going to cause all sorts of arguments and and re-edits at least until the civil war ends. What does everyone think?

[edit] The traitor

Looks like Frontline #11 revealed Ben and Sally's discoveries - that Stark was the 'traitor' in the organization responsible behind Osborne going nuts. Anyone wanna add it in? Sera404 02:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's vital to add that, I agree. I would do it myself, but I don't think I understood it well enough. --NathaliaMueller 21:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps add it into the Post Civil War section, with some note about Ben Urich and Sally Floyd's accusation of Stark having masterminded Osborne's attack on the Atlanteans as well as the Atlantean representative. By Stark's reaction, it was pretty much true (with him breaking down after they left his office). Also probably have to include it into Norman Osborne and Ben Urich pages as well. Does Sally Floyd have her own page yet? If so, there as well. Ahh, all these plot twists... :) Sera404 22:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That thing on his chest that defies trademark law

Why does Iron Man have a yellow Superman shield on his breastplate these days? I was never a reader of his comic, but I know that every time he showed up in crossovers his armor had a yellow circle there. Now all the ads I see show him with a familiar inverted triangle on his chest. Wait, excuse me, it's an inverted PENTAGON, actually - exactly the shape of Superman's "S" but a bit smaller. That is not a minor artistic detail, not coming out of a company that has more lawyers than artists on its payroll. Why is Marvel doing it, and how is the change explained in-comic? I suspect the former answer involves Iron Man's villainous Maxwell Lord-like role in Civil War, but the latter probably doesn't depend on Tony Stark discovering his long-forgotten Kryptonian heritage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asat (talk • contribs) 09:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

em.. because the artist thought it would be cool when he redesigned the suit? --Fredrick day 10:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The uni-beam has gone through a number of geometrical changes. The earliest I remember was on the Space Armor in the early 80's, it was in the shape of a baseball homeplate. The Silver Centurion armor had an inverted triangle, and I think one version of the Stealth Armor had the same. Its just progression of the suit, the artists are going to change things just to keep it fresh. I don't think its intentionally to mimic the shape of the Superman chest symbol. --Staxeon 02:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If the shape showed up on, say, a Persian rug or a newly discovered breed of salamander, I wouldn't think it was anything unusual. But that exact shape...dead center on a comic book superhero's chest? It seems unlikely that the artist had never seen a Superman comic in all the years prior to getting a job in the comic industry and being chosen to redesign the appearance of a major character. But even if he hadn't, wouldn't someone at Marvel point out, "hey, that looks a LOT like the shape that's on the chest of our Distinguished Competitor's number one character...and my coffee mug...and the poster for that new movie." Can we look forward to a lantern-shaped uni-beam at some point? Asat 21:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
While I admit it's a little suspect, the pentagon is hardly owned by DC or only used by Supes. Granted, while the shape is hardly my favorite, it's been used before on Iron Man's armor, and as far as I know, no one drew parallels then. Of course, I was not even old enough to attend school at that point, so take it for what it's worth. All in all, though, I don't think it's terribly noteworthy without getting specific citations. ArchangelX777 15:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/r/o/Talk%7EIron_Man_6adf.html"